Re: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Originally Posted by ness

Apparently, she's very much revamped her long-held standing as one of the nastiest, most ill-tempered British Royals around, and is now well-known for how very hard she works each year for charities that SHE is patron of, I believe.

Great lady!

This is neither here nor there, but it is entirely possible to be a hateful shrew or a world-class douchebag and still spend a lot of time doing charity work. I know this from personal experience.

Re: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

This is neither here nor there, but it is entirely possible to be a hateful shrew or a world-class douchebag and still spend a lot of time doing charity work. I know this from personal experience.

WHAT is neither here nor there? I seem to be missing whatever your point is.

Why? Because of COURSE it's ABSOLUTELY possible to be a hateful shrew or a world class douchebag and still spend a lot of time doing charity work. Anne was doing charity work, too, when she was widely KNOWN --- AND DISLIKED --- as a rolling bitch.

The point of MY post (besides the fact that she's NEVER been known as any kind of a fashion icon) was to acknowledge that Anne, for WHATEVER the reason, has experienced what seems to be a drastic change of her public persona over the years. She has gone from being a hellified harpy to a decent, even reasonably nice and pleasant person, who also appears to work doubly hard nowadays as a patron for her charities. And as a British Royal, she's done charity patronages and work for years. It's part of what they're born into to do, I think.

So, yeah, just as it's possible to be a fashion disaster and/or a rolling bitch, one can STILL be able to be involved in charitable activities that benefit others. Anne, at least, has proven that the two are not mutually exclusive. I called her a great lady because in spite of her negative public persona of many years, she has ALWAYS been a patron of various charities, and done charitable work, and now seems to be coming in to her own as also being a nicer, more reasonable public person. As well as being one of the royal family that works hardest in these endeavors.

In MY personal experience, some of the biggest, most ill-bred heifers I know --- people I wouldn't bother to spit on if I saw them on fire in the street --- are, ironically, some of the main persons that actually give to/do volunteer work in/raise money for various charitable causes. I cheer this about them, even as I recognize that other than this, they're not very agreeable or likeable people. I think they're great for what they do to help others, even while being full-blown bitches and more likely than not to be the first ones that are going to bust Hell wide open.

"In a world of pollution, profanity, adolescence, broccoli, zits, ozone depletion, racism, sexism, stupid guys and PMS, why the hell do people still tell me to have a nice day?" - UnknownSpring 2016 FoRT Yearbook Title: "Most Likely to Make a Short Story Long, and a Long Story LONGER!"

Re: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Originally Posted by ness

WHAT is neither here nor there? I seem to be missing whatever your point is.

Why? Because of COURSE it's ABSOLUTELY possible to be a hateful shrew or a world class douchebag and still spend a lot of time doing charity work. Anne was doing charity work, too, when she was widely KNOWN --- AND DISLIKED --- as a rolling bitch..

My point was in reponse to your:

Apparently, she's very much revamped her long-held standing as one of the nastiest, most ill-tempered British Royals around, and is now well-known for how very hard she works each year for charities that SHE is patron of, I believe.

So, according to your very own worrds, she was nasty and ill-tempered, but she now works hard for charities. You didn't make what appears to be your actual position clear in your initial post.

Re: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Originally Posted by captain

The problem is NOT that Harry was naked in the room, the problem is he allowed pictures to be taken. I remember very little slack for the Bush twins and their escapades.

The biggest difference is that the Bush twins were in their late teens when they acted up, just like Harry has done in the past. At that age people will just shake their heads & get over it, saying they're young & will learn. If you notice, the Bush twins did just that: grew up & learned. Harry, not so much.

Harry is 27 & should know better. He knows the media is waiting for him to slip up. He should have take all precautions to make sure this private party stayed private. Not doing so was far worse than a naked party.

"In a world of pollution, profanity, adolescence, broccoli, zits, ozone depletion, racism, sexism, stupid guys and PMS, why the hell do people still tell me to have a nice day?" - UnknownSpring 2016 FoRT Yearbook Title: "Most Likely to Make a Short Story Long, and a Long Story LONGER!"

Re: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Terrell Owens (T.O.), a stellar football player who was a celeb in this thread a while ago, has been cut by the Seattle Seahawks, a couple of days before the seasons cuts were announced. He used to buddy up with Chad (Ochocinco) Johnson when they both played for Cincinnati. Thank goodness, he didn't lose his mind and beat anybody up....he just wasn't "cutting the mustard", so to speak. He is 38 and at the end of his career, too. I hate to see it, but everybody's time comes. He hurt his knee over a year ago. Shame.....he was a real star. Now, if he can just steer clear of Chaddy. T.O., kind of, came in the front door and went out the back door.

Re: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Originally Posted by Shoepie

This monarchy will change, not that I care. They have stopped beheading people so there is hope. It is all so silly. You have to back out of a room so you don't turn your back on the queen. And there is much more nonsense. I like Harry, Fergie and Diana though. Good for all of them crossing these imaginary lines.